From: Paul Wilson
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Date:
Message-ID: <5jc2rk$ru5@roar.cs.utexas.edu>
In article <················@news.sydney.apana.org.au>,
<····@gco.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>>The fact that it was my post you mocked was not a problem. I made
>>a very stupid comment (possibly the dumbest on this thread thus far)
>> What bothered me was
>>how you just cavalierly ignored the postings of others and the rest
>>of my post as if they did not matter.
>>The problem however was not that you decided to avoid all the
>>posts, but rather chose a portion of one post to mock,
>
>Considering that O did in fact respond to many of the other mesages
>may make this post of yours the second "dumbest on this thread thus
>far" ( the words you used to describe an earlier post of yours. )
The fact that his post was pretty acurate makes your a candidate,
too. It's true that Ousterhout has picked the easy targets, ignored
most of the serious questions, and answered others in superficial
ways, often begging the question. (E.g., with respect to
the hard dichotomy between "scripting" and "systems" languages,
which seems to conveniently leave out plain old "applications"
programming.)
--
| Paul R. Wilson, Comp. Sci. Dept., U of Texas @ Austin (······@cs.utexas.edu)
| Papers on memory allocators, garbage collection, memory hierarchies,
| persistence and Scheme interpreters and compilers available via ftp from
| ftp.cs.utexas.edu, in pub/garbage (or http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/wilson/)
From: dat
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Date:
Message-ID: <995@beech.ukc.ac.uk>
Is it really necessary for this thread to be cross posted to so many
groups? Could I suggest that those who wish to continue it do so in
comp.lang.tcl
only?